Have you heard? A new generation of robots may be just around the corner. As the ScienceDaily piece words it:
The first prototype robots capable of developing emotions as they interact with their human caregivers and expressing a whole range of emotions have been finalised by researchers. [link; all emphases mine]
Robots developing emotion? Isn’t that somehow oxymoronic? Robots are machines and machines don’t have feelings. Right?
More about the breakthrough machines robots:
The robots are capable of expressing anger, fear, sadness, happiness, excitement and pride and will demonstrate very visible distress if the caregiver fails to provide them comfort when confronted by a stressful situation that they cannot cope with or to interact with them when they need it.
Oh boy. Pardon my emotional reaction here, but . . . crap. I’m having trouble coping right now. There is just so much to this topic to be skeptical about. And there certainly is that crucial element that, when pushed to it’s logical extreme, challenges my own understanding of being and self.
First off, human emotion is tremendously complex. An “emotion” can include a few or most of the following incomplete list of changes to: facial expression, gestural expression, vocal qualities, posture, muscle tone, heart rate, blood pressure, hormone and neurotransmitter levels, blood flow to specific regions of the brain resulting in what has been called a “priming” of types of memories/thoughts, etc.
Beyond the measurable, physical changes, emotions are a social phenomenon. Only social animals develop and express emotions. It seems the development in robots has smartly focused on this social aspect. But it’s the personal element that I wonder about. And this is the element we can’t really verify. Not now.
Consider this claim from the write-up:
[T]hese robots differ from others in the way that they form attachments, interact and express emotion through bodily expression.
Sure, they may seem to form attachments. But are they only “going through the motions”? Are these robots merely very good mimics?
Granted, they may be a real step in the direction of creating “beings” that learn and respond on many levels, just as we do. Machines that can have motives and undergo fluctuations in their intent and energy level, among other things. And as these robots develop, thinkers like you and I will be forced to wonder when mimicry crosses the line to a “real” thing.
Sure, humans are made of flesh, and robots are not. But when it comes down to the very nitty-gritty, are we not just incredibly elaborate meat machines? In suspecting that robots could never have true emotions, am I merely being xenophobic; is my innate instinct to be alarmed by potential deceit (as all we hyper-social primates are) merely being triggered? Don’t be fooled by the robot! It isn’t really a person. It is deceiving you!
At this point in time, I have very strong doubts about robots developing what we might call true emotion. But I don’t know. When I think about it . . . Why not? No, we aren’t talking about an evil engineer using a syringe to magically inject a soul into his contraption of sheet metal, stainless steel bolts, and tangles of wire. It’s much more complicated than that.
And soul, what is that? I don’t believe in it. Not as something distinct from the workings of an animal body. But what about the personal part. That dynamic but not fully plastic, distinct agency we perceive as “soul,” as an individual’s persisting essence?
I don’t know.
And frankly, I’m a bit confused as to why anyone would want to develop or own such a robot. Still. With the progressive development of these . . . machines many, many important questions are being raised.
Years ago, as an undergraduate student, I was taught about Abraham Maslow’s pyramid-shaped “hierarchy of needs.” I thought it was kinda neat. But I wasn’t a full-fledged critical thinker yet, so it didn’t dawn on me to question how Maslow knew that esteem was a higher need than love — indeed, that it was a basic need at all — and that self-actualization was the highest human need. Did Maslow conduct research? What cross-cultural data did he consult? Or was the pyramid idea the result of Maslow looking into the crystal ball of his creative intuition?
Because psychologists began to realize that Moslow’s model had all the weight of Styrofoam, it ceased being included in many general psychology texts. Including the one I last used in the classroom.
Recently I read of a renovation to Maslow’s pyramid by a team of psychologists and published in Perspectives on Psychological Sciences [source]. Allow me to present “before” and “after” images.
Before -
After -
The article announcing the re-build begins like this:
If you have ever felt that your children are your life’s work, then you may in fact be recognizing a high-level psychological need. Caring for your children, feeding them, nurturing them, educating them and making sure they get off on the right foot in life – all of the things that make parenting successful – may actually be deep rooted psychological urges that we fulfill as part of being human. [emphases added]
Hmmm. While I do prefer the newer version, I’m not sure about the whole pyramid design with higher and lower relationships. And I do wonder what data informed the revision.
The announcement ends with these words -
“The pyramid of needs is a wonderful idea of Maslow’s,” Kenrick said. “He just got some of it wrong. Now people are talking about it again, which will help us get it right.”
I was left with this question: perhaps the whole pyramid idea is off-base, and thus if we stick to it we will never “get it right.” Maybe a “snowflake/constellation of needs,” or something else, might provide a better foundation from which to build our understanding.
If you ask me, remodeling a one-time popular but bogus structure is not a good way to progress. Raze that pyramid and start anew.
Are atheists less patriotic than believers? And, if so, is this a bad thing?
As to the first question, it seems so. At least a recent study finding suggests as much. The first paragraph of the news release sums it up:
A study by Ryotaro Uemura, sociology doctoral student at Indiana University Bloomington, found that people who had no religious affiliation have significantly less favorable views of the U.S. However, to be an ethnic minority does not necessarily have significant effects on national attitudes.
Wow. Have the FOX talking-heads been right all along? Are we godless liberals going to drive the country off the closest cliff? Do we really hate America?
First, a little more specificity:
Uemura also found that to be non-citizens does not have a significant effect on national pride; this suggests that non-citizens are as proud of the U.S. as are citizens.
Okay, if you think about it, a lot of questions come cascading, beyond the customary, “Is this finding legit.”
Is national pride the same thing as patriotism?
Is it possible to have less favorable views of your country but love and/or care for it as much?
Should FOX pundits direct their ire away from immigrants and Muslims toward non-believers?
Would it be advantageous/accurate to to view these findings in the light of feelings of group belonging and acceptance?
And then there is this:
As for ethnic subgroups, blacks tend to have less favorable views compared to their white counterparts.
Not surprising, but . . . more questions.
We human beings tend to explain differences in behavior by pointing toward dispositional attributes. It’s easy; it’s quick. One person does good things because he/she is a hero, another person does bad things because he/she is evil. Or unpatriotic. What goes missing are the many other, essential variables. Digging deeper to expose the actual psychological mechanisms would better explain our differences. Until that time, I try to steer clear of blanket dispositional-think.
Scientists are the real mythbusters. For not only do they extend what we know about the universe, they provide correction when we’ve gotten it wrong. And that correction applies to science itself! Thus the phrase, “science is self-correcting.”
Oops, we got it wrong. Here’s how we went wrong…here’s a more accurate understanding….
Over the past few decades the science of psychology has been doing quite a bit myth-busting. No, cold/distant mothers don’t cause boys to develop a homosexual orientation. No, sugar does not cause kids to become hyper. Etc. There is still a long way to go, however.
One popular myth that is only slowly waning, at least as is reflected in culture-at-large, is that the child is fully shaped in its first few years of life. SO DON’T SCREW IT UP, PARENTS!
Nope. First, children aren’t blank slates. They come into the world with their own unique disposition that blossoms over time. And though early experiences are likely influential — for some attributes/abilities, very, for others, not so much and/or not so permanently, they aren’t the only variables involved.
Case in point: Only children. For a long time it was assumed that children without siblings would suffer due to a lack of social interaction with peers (non-parents). And, indeed, early research showed that only children entering the school years had less-developed social skills. But newer research has corrected that view.
Such as this item: Growing up without sibs doesn’t hurt social skills
The findings -
A study of more than 13,000 middle and high school students across the country found that “only children” were selected as friends by their schoolmates just as often as were peers who grew up with brothers and sisters….
“Kids interact in school, they’re participating in extracurricular activities, and they’re socializing in and out of school,” she said [Donna Bobbitt-Zeher, co-author of the study].
“Anyone who didn’t have that peer interaction at home with siblings gets a lot of opportunities to develop social skills as they go through school.”
Humans are, in many regards, quite plastic. It seems there isn’t a narrow window for learning how to get along with and be liked by peers.
At least, that’s a more current understanding. Just don’t chisel it in stone.
I take a lot of photos of flowers. And food. What does that say about me? Perhaps nothing significant.
Yet, I also have noticed that when on vacation I take relatively few of people. Instead, it’s this scene, that item/artifact. In the travel photos of others I see shot after shot of smiling faces. The travelers themselves. It’s this scene with faces, that item/artifact with hands and faces.
Mind you, I don’t believe that one approach to travel photos is better. In fact, I’ve lately tried to change my habits to include more shots of me, my wife, and/or family and friends. But the self-focus does seem to go against my grain, somehow.
Everybody is different. And maybe you can even see it in the photos they take.
That ‘lucky’ charm of yours — the troll doll with the purple hair and eyeglasses — you might just want to bring it along to bingo night. Science has determined this type of superstitious behavior can work. Yes, science has said so.
New research shows that having some kind of lucky token can actually improve your performance – by increasing your self-confidence. [source]
Okay, so the mode of action is thoroughly natural vs. supernatural/magical. Still. If it works, can we categorize the behavior as fully irrational?
Sure, the belief in how superstitious charms and rituals work may be irrational. But if they do work . . . .
As for the finding itself, here’s more:
In one of the experiments, volunteers were told to bring a lucky charm with them. Then the researchers took it away to take a picture. People brought in all kinds of items, from old stuffed animals to wedding rings to lucky stones. Half of the volunteers were given their charm back before the test started; the other half were told there was a problem with the camera equipment and they would get it back later. Volunteers who had their lucky charm did better at a memory game on the computer, and other tests showed that this difference was because they felt more confident. [emphasis added]
On a skeptic note, I do wonder about the part about “increased confidence” being the reason for the better performance. Self-reported feelings can be spot-on, but they can also be off the mark. Lowered anxiety levels have previously been associated with better performance on tests. Akin to the compulsions that people with OCD engage in to decrease their anxiety level, could these lucky charms and superstitious rituals be doing something similar? Was/is there a way to differentiate between feelings of lesser anxiety and feelings of greater confidence?
Further research will tell.
